o Not a taking rationally related to public use White Collar Crime US v

O not a taking rationally related to public use white

  • Test Prep
  • volleymama1026
  • 6
  • 100% (3) 3 out of 3 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 6 pages.

o Not a taking ; rationally related to public use White Collar Crime US v. Shrivastava o Shriv software engineer for Nvidia; buys $30000 in options for Nvidia stock after Xbox partnership announced to employees/ company o Guilty as company insider ; classical insider trading SEC v. Herbst o Herbst consulting hired by Adobe to write their releases; Prez of Herbst buying & selling Adobe stock with knowledge from release 4 times o Liable as temporary insider US v. O’Hagan o O’Hagan partner in Dorsey and Whitney law firm. Grand Met, London company, has tinder offer to buy Pillsbury. o O’Hagan not working for companies but finds out about deal; buys stock and options in Pillsbury o Guilty as misappropriator SEC v. Dirks o Dirks is stock broker with friend who is former officer of equity firm (Seacrest) knows equity funding has written billions of dollars in false insurance claims increasing the stock value. Tells others about it and they sell their shares. SEC sues Dirks for aiding and abetting clients who sold their stocks. o Not guilty as tipper because motive to disclose was not for personal benefit, but to expose fraud US v. Newman o Gov’t felt there weren’t enough facts to make good law out of the case o Although Newman had nonpublic info that he passed along, the info traveled through too many mediums for him to know that someone would benefit from the information Negligence Reisner v. Regents of Univ. of California o Chain of events reasonably foreseeable, Regents motion denied Otis Engineering Co. v. Clark (201-203) o No duty to control acts of others but employer’s control over employee creates duty that provides them with liability o Key fact: company was aware of Mathis’ state and still let him drive from work drunk. They could have prevented the incident by not letting him drive o Otis Engineering is liable Kubert v.Colonna o Duty not to text if knew Best was driving and texting at same time Cordas v. Peerless Transport Co. o Driver (D) not negligent under circumstances o Emergency Doctrine: instinct of self-preservation takes over/ act reasonably under the circumstances Pelletier v. Lahm 3
Image of page 3
o Lahm driving friends home and bikini top taken off by Brandon o Lahm not negligent given circumstances Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
Image of page 4
Image of page 5

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 6 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes